Barack Obama vs. John McCain

[Shasta542]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/senator_ratings-2005.html

Wouldn't the first on the list and the last on the list be considered "radical"?

I don't prefer to have a radical -- left or right -- as the U.S. president.

[Sheriff Roland]

Isn't that like saying an "A+" is a bad score cause it's extremely high, and a "C" is the best mark possible?

Maybe I didn't understand your argument view point.

[Shasta542]

It's saying that Senator Obama is a radical socialist, and I'd prefer someone running the country who did not have that agenda. We don't even know his whole agenda because he voted "present" on several key bills when they were presented.
 

[Clyde-B]

If I'm reading it correctly, Obama's numbers are lower than Dick Durbin's of Illinois because neither the PTA or the ACLU rated Obama.  All their other numbers were the same.  And Obama's numbers are only slightly higher than Ted Kennedy's or Hillary Clinton's.  Obama's mean score is 98, theirs is 95. 

Sounds more typical than radical to me.

[Shasta542]

If I'm reading it correctly, Obama's numbers are lower than Dick Durbin's of Illinois because neither the PTA or the ACLU rated Obama.  All their other numbers were the same.  And Obama's numbers are only slightly higher than Ted Kennedy's or Hillary Clinton's.  Obama's mean score is 98, theirs is 95. 

Sounds more typical than radical to me.

Maybe "typical" for this forum, but Senator Obama has the highest ratings possible by liberal and leftists groups. That shows that he is outside the mainstream of U.S. opinion. It would be dangerous to have a President with views that are far to the left or far to the right of the mainstream.

Individual states and congressional districts may elect far leftists or rightwingers, but the country as a whole needs a president who reflects the opinions of the overwhelming majority. Senator Obama is far to the left of the overwhelming majority of Americans.

[injest]

How he stands on the economy - important 

what he has done about the economy in his district  - important

How he stands on the illegal war - important

What he has done in the Senate about the war - important

How he stands on gay issues - important

See above

How he stand on a woman's right to chose - important

see above

How much experience he has - not that important (you don't know how you react until you're faced with those situations)

SEE ABOVE!!!

How his wife expresses her thoughts - absolutely not important

How his preacher thinks - absolutely not important.

How he smirks or appears over confident - not at all important

Come on folks - get real.

He has been in the Senate for how long and has a record of what?? "Presents" ...not AYES or NAYS...but Present.

leader? no.

[injest]

interesting article here:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWZjY2YzZWVkMjdkMDEzMGQ0MjJkNTUyN2FkNmMzYTc=#more

[jstephens9]

Like I have said before it is quite easy to see what is going to happen if the Democrats nominate Obama. It's as easy as looking at a map and comparing it to past elections. Look at the states Obama has won. These are Republican (red) states. Then look at the swing states. Who has won them? Hillary. Look at states like New York and California. Who won them? Hillary. Who has the best chance of winning all of these states in a national election between McCain and Obama? McCain. Who becomes president? McCain. Nominate Obama and McCain more than likely becomes the next president.

[Brown Eyes]

Like I have said before it is quite easy to see what is going to happen if the Democrats nominate Obama. It's as easy as looking at a map and comparing it to past elections. Look at the states Obama has won. These are Republican (red) states. Then look at the swing states. Who has won them? Hillary. Look at states like New York and California. Who won them? Hillary. Who has the best chance of winning all of these states in a national election between McCain and Obama? McCain. Who becomes president? McCain. Nominate Obama and McCain more than likely becomes the next president.

My sense is that the major issue of which states Hillary has won and her favorable percentages against McCain in Ohio, PA and one other swing state that they mentioned on the news tonight (I think Florida) is the main reason that so many superdelegates are still not making up their mind and the reason the party is permitting this primary to go on and on.  If the party and the superdelegates were really comfortable with Obama, I think this would have been over a while ago.  And, I really do think the main issue is competitiveness since Obama's and Hillary's platforms are so relatively similar.

[HerrKaiser]

Maybe "typical" for this forum, but Senator Obama has the highest ratings possible by liberal and leftists groups. That shows that he is outside the mainstream of U.S. opinion. It would be dangerous to have a President with views that are far to the left or far to the right of the mainstream.

Individual states and congressional districts may elect far leftists or rightwingers, but the country as a whole needs a president who reflects the opinions of the overwhelming majority. Senator Obama is far to the left of the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Absolutely correct.  In fact, the senator ratings by the leftists groups...so what? A study measuring attitudes among such a bias and skewed set of repondents is totally worthless. hello? Would anyone expect results from this set of left wingers to be different? I'll quote one of the recent posters--"get real".

After 8 years of Clinton divisiveness and another 8 years of Bush divisiveness, the last thing this country (or the world) needs is another poorly qualified, rely-on-platitudes, easy-target-for-controvery leader. Geraldine Ferraro was right. Obama has little business being where he is. If his personal beliefs as well as his politics were not so skewed to the left, he might be a reasonable risk. But, his views (the few we know about!) reflect only a minority of Americans' beliefs.